Big shoe drops. Wilkes decides to bring the gang down with him.

Daniel Levy: Getting Israel out of under the thumb of the neocons schemers.

We seem to be deep into the phase of the Lieberman-Lamont race in which both sides are angling to game expectations for Tuesday, with the Lamont folks trying to tamp down the expectations created by recent polls and the Lieberman camp, I assume, hoping that a spread of only a few points can be spun as some sort of comeback, though that'll take some doing.

With that in mind, let's consult some polls.

You probably know about the latest Quinnipiac poll out yesterday which had Lamont up 54% to 41%. But there's a new poll out this evening which shows a very similar picture. A Research 2000 poll commissioned by the New London Day has it 53% Lamont to 43% for Lieberman. A bit tighter. But basically the same picture.

And remember, that comes after a two week old Rasmussen poll which had it 51% to 41% for Lamont.

I'm not privy to whatever internal polling the two campaigns might be doing. But these public polls show a remarkably consistent picture. Lamont barely, but consistently over 50% and Lieberman barely able to make it over 40%. Add to that the fact that undecideds tend to break strongly for the challenger and you've got a very sobering picture shaping up for Lieberman.

Time is running out for the GOP, says Charlie Cook. Unless something big happens to change the dynamic, it's Speaker Pelosi in 2007.

So who's Richard Goodstein? He's the mystery heckler pictured on the front page of a local Connecticut paper today, which reported that Goodstein was among a number of Lieberman backers who badgered Ned Lamont during his visit to a local diner. Goodstein shouted at the candidate, "Are you a Bill Clinton Democrat, or an Al Sharpton Democrat"?

Now Election Central has reached Goodstein on his cellphone, and confirmed that he's the same Richard Goodstein who is a registered lobbyist in D.C. Goodstein is, as the conversation showed, a very ardent Lieberman supporter.

Late Update: Heckler Goodstein has a dirty tricks past.

Today the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee officially released their report detailing the Bush Administration's law-breaking tendencies.

Justin Rood talks with Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and asks about the "I" word.

Jane's Defense Weekly says that Iran has agreed to supply Hizbullah with advanced surface-to-air missiles to bolster its defenses against the Israeli Air Force. Is it true? Hard to say. Jane's cites 'unnamed Western diplomatic sources'. And at times like these we've got to have our antennae tuned for disinformation of all sorts. But if it is true it certainly won't end well. And it is yet another moment when you wish there was something such as a United States government interested or even remotely capable of grabbing hold of this situation and pulling it back from the brink.

Why did Jack Abramoff call Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) a "hero" for the Northern Mariana Islands and its sweatshop owners?

Here's why.

It now seems almost like a given that Joe Lieberman will lose his struggle for the Democratic nomination next Tuesday. But his fall is so precipitous and the possible margin of his defeat so large, that it now seems increasingly questionable whether he'll even appear on the ballot in November, let alone win reelection to his seat. Yes, could have walked away with it as an independent had a hypothetical race been held a month ago. He may even lead in one today. But as Mark Schmitt's been saying for a while the negative momentum created by a clear defeat in the primary will have a catalyzing effect. I really doubt that more than a smattering of Dems will rally to his independent bid. Suddenly he'll be branded as a loser. And the pressure to get out will be fierce. If Joe goes down, I think the day he sealed his fate was when he decided to hedge his bets and not abide by the results of the Democratic primary.

The Pentagon announced eight months ago it was reviewing all defense contracts awarded to bribers of convicted ex-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA). Yet today, little appears to have changed. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.

Haaretz says Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Prime Minster Ehud Olmert are at odds on expanding ground operations in Lebanon, with the former advocating a greater expansion. Peretz is head of the Labor Party and thus the head of the junior partner in Olmert's coalition government.

Coming around?

Jeff Greenfield on Lieberman: It's not just about Iraq.

TPM Media is accepting applications for our Fall 2006 Internships. Our interns work out of our Manhattan offices and work in every aspect of our operation -- researching, reporting, writing, helping maintain our three sites, the whole bit.

In our Fall '06 cycle, the main focus will be on our new Election Central website. Interns will be deeply involved in research and writing to give readers the most up-to-date view of the November election.

It's a good way to get experience in journalism, politics and online publishing.

If you're interested, send us an email at the comments link on the right, with the subject line "TPM Internship", and tell us about yourself and why you're interested in the gig.

Breaking: In Texas, federal appeals court rules Tom DeLay must remain on the ballot.

Update: The Texas Republicans say they'll appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So how's the Mac?

A few months ago I told you how, after two decades in the PC universe, I was considering buying a Mac. The immediate trigger was a really bad experience with a new Gateway computer. But there was a broader dissatisfaction with PCs and interest in trying out Macs. Also, in the field I work in -- journalism and web design -- Macs are fairly dominant. So I got a Mac Mini to test the water and a nice Mac Cinema display, figuring that if I liked Macs the display would migrate with me when I got a more powerful Mac system.

So I wanted to take a moment and report back on what my experiences have been.

Basically, I'm sold. I've been using a PC at home and a Mac at work for several months now. And I just prefer using the Mac. A lot. Some of it is simple ease of use, the 'it just works factor'. It runs with few or no problems. And not having to worry about computer viruses is nice. I'm also doing a lot more working with video. And there's no question the machine is just better designed for working with video -- both on the hardware level and in the applications it comes with. But that's a niche use.

When I think about it, it's hard for me to point to any one thing that I prefer about the Mac. I'm a pretty adept PC user. And I'm usually able to fix or workaround whatever problems crop up. I think what it comes down to for me is basically three things.

First, Quality. That can mean a lot of things, but I mean this: Because I spend so much time on a computer and it's so central to my work, I'm willing to pay good money for a really well-built machine. In the PC world, I've just had a really hard time finding that. Sure I had a bad experience with Gateway. But it's the same with the other big companies. Even if you get the top of the line, it's just not that well put together. And it's usually a bunch of different parts that don't really work together all that well. So, quality of the physical product and its integration with the operating system itself, which also seems light years ahead of Windows. The thing's just made really well and it shows. (The only systems I've found in the PC world that have some of this are the formerly IBM manufactured ThinkPads, now made by Lenovo.)

Second, Integration. This is an aspect of the quality issues I mentioned above and the integration with the operating system. But as a PC user I would find myself wishing the operating system did things a certain really convenient way. And just as often, I'd think couldn't there be a program that accomplished this one relatively simple task for me? They all seem to already be there on Mac. Or at least I find them again and again. It's hard to point to any one thing that makes too big a difference. But they build on each other. And all told, they lead to a more pleasant and productive work experience. The new Macs have a suite of programs (iLife) for organizing and editing your photos, videos, music, etc. Amazingly powerful and well-designed. Just right there, ready to use, perfect. If you're working with graphics and video and anything to do with design, it's just not even close. A lot of this, I suppose, is just what's possible when you have more of a integrated production concept. Mac creates the machine, the operating system and a decent amount of the software. So of course they all tend to work well together. I've always been a bit leery of this since it sounded like I'd be tied into one prescribed approach and system and would be cut off from the innovation produced through a less hierarchical computer universe. In practice, though, I really like it. (It still bums me out that Mac doesn't make a Tablet computer. I absolutely love my Tablet.)

Third, Aesthetics and It Just Works. I like the way the Mac looks and the physical presentation on the screen is vastly nicer than on a PC. Also, things just work a whole lot easier. I plug things in and they work. Everything is just organized a whole lot better. There are still some things I've had difficulties with. But I think that's mainly because I have the personality disorder that prevents me from reading directions.

By and large, migrating data over from Mac works pretty seamlessly. I'm still having a problem finding a way to migrate my Eudora email over. The files go over. But there's some slight difference in the way texts files work on the two systems that makes the PC email not come over entirely intact. I think I need to find a Mac techie who can put together a script to fix this. If you're familiar with this problem and have any tips, please let me know.

Halliburton lobbyist blames wife for contribution to Pennsylvania Green candidate.

Sad and almost funny (in an extremely dark way). Rumsfeld: "‘I Have Never Painted A Rosy Picture" About Iraq.

We finally got ahold of that GOP-funded Green candidate in Pennsylvania.

"I respect the fact that people on the complete opposite side of an issue could respect my point of view," he told me.

Rep. Katherine Harris' (R-FL) latest Senate campaign manager (her fourth) has a history of lame shenanigans. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.

Former White House official Claude Allen to plead guilty to theft.

Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) is now saying she didn't tell the Speaker of the House about her subpoena, as House rules would seem to direct, because the rules did not apply to her situation.

Following up on Paul Kiel's reporting on this, now that we know that the Green Party in Pennsylvania at least is a fully GOP funded dirty tricks oppo, it kinda gives a new meaning to the label Green Party.

Right-wing torture-crat Mark Levin: "I want to congratulate the attorneys who work with me at Landmark Legal Foundation for tenaciously pursuing the untold story of the systematic abuse of American MPs by the al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. It took us a full year to bring this stunning information to light, but the truth is now out." (via BelgraviaDispatch)

You probably remember Levin from the Clinton years. But I actually feel a little sad for folks like Levin, born as he seems to be in the wrong era. Sure we have Guantanamo and lots of much worse stuff went on in the last few decades. But the years between the world wars were really the golden age of secret prisons and torture. It's like Levin's era has passed him by.

Aha! We finally nailed it down: Every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party Senate candidate is actually a conservative -- except for the candidate himself.

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) has plenty of problems in his reelection run this year. But luckily for him he's drawn a big time resume-padder as his opponent.

Katherine Harris is having to reach pretty far down in the barrell to get off press calls at this point. From the AP: "Harris was reached on her cell phone Wednesday by The Associated Press, but said she had a bad connection and referred the call to her campaign office."

Katherine Harris, God's way of telling us that Karma is real.

For vulnerable Republicans, it pays to be undecided on net neutrality.

There's a big rule in the House of Representatives. When you get subpoenaed, you have to report it to the House. Looks like Katherine Harris broke that rule too.

Even Andrew Sullivan gives Lieberman the thumbs down. It's a touch more complicated. He says ... well, just go read.

Okay, so it turns out Rep. McKinney is not suing the AJC. Apparently it was a bluff, though they're still threatening.

Pro-settlement whack-jobs lash out at Olmert after Prime Minister says result of Lebanon War will provide new momentum for West Bank pull-outs.

Harris lied to staff about getting Cunningham investigation subpoena.

Going down fighting. McKinney sues Atlanta Journal-Constitution for libel.

House Republicans cut-and-run on "french fries" issue. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.

A weird coda to the recent shooting at the Jewish center in Seattle. The shooter, Naveed Haq, though raised a Muslim, had converted last year to Christianity. He told the pastor who baptised him in December that he had "seen too much anger in Islam and that he wanted to find a new beginning in Christianity." Behind that the familiar story of personal and professional failure, manic depression, an arrest earlier this year for "lewd conduct" at a local mall.

Cynthia in big trouble. Hank Johnson leading Rep. Cynthia McKinney by 49% to 34% one week before the primary run-off.

Bill Arkin has a good corrective on some of the flawed logic and hypocrisy of the military commentary on the Israel-Lebanon war.

Yglesias adds some good critical analysis to J-Pod's new pro-genocide positon on running the Middle East: brutal crackdown and massacres can be effective in the context of an on-going process of tyrannical repression and brutal dictatorship. Less so if you so don't want to run a police state permanently, which probably undermines the argument in favor of indiscriminate mass-killing as a means of democratization and liberalization.

And yes, the collapse of the neocon vision of forcible democratization does seem to glide rather effortlessly into an embrace of genocide and mass slaughter.

So mass slaughter in the service of democratization to mass slaughter in the service of mass slaughter, or what I guess we could call the transition from incidental or pragmatic genocide to a more principled genocide.

Kudlow: Israel-Lebanon war very, very good for stock market!

Believe there should be an immediate ceasefire in Israel-Lebanon? Click here.

Is the Green Party candidacy in the race for Rick Santorum's seat a wholly Republican sponsored affair? It's looking that way.

TPM Reader CC ...

Why wouldn't the Dems make these anti-social security Republican comments a cornerstone of the congressional campaigns this Fall? It seems a no brainer. " Vote Democratic if you don't want to lose S.S." you know, stuff like that.

I'm not sure about the cornerstone, only because there are several other Bush-engineered disasters that need equal billing. As to why they're not making an issue of it? Yeah, no idea.

Question of the day: What comes after Castro?

White House nominates Susan Dudley to be OMB regulation czar.

Last year she came out against fire-retardant kids pajamas.

Bemoaning the dire burden of regulations last year on Jim Glassman's astroturf site TCSDaily.com, she wrote ...

We also pay the price as consumers. From the moment we wake up in the morning -- flushing the toilet twice, courtesy of the Department of Energy's appliance standards -- to the time we put our children in their Consumer Product Safety Commission-approved pajamas, regulations not only increase the cost of goods and services we buy, but also the choices we can make.

The heavy hand of government stomping down on kid frying. Enough to make you a Hayek disciple after all.

As an expectant father I certainly hope that the government will stay out of our decisions about whether to put our child to bed in flammable pajamas.

It had to come: the Lieberman-Sharpton dust-up.

Atrios says he's not sure he buys the presidential-run-embitterment theory of Lieberman's lameness.

I'm really not sure I buy the "Joe got all pouty when no one wanted him to be president" theory. He was pretty wankerific before the presidential primary campaign heated up (and, of course, during it.)

True enough. I'd only add that Joe's rejection in the primaries was pretty evident from the outset. So pretty much everything after mid-late 2003, in my book at least, comes in the embitterment era.

New Treasury Secretary Paulson says he's eager to phase out Social Security too.

So let's think, Bush, Boehner, McCrery, Paulson and a bunch others all say they're gunning to phase out Social Security again next year if the Republicans hold Congress. Is it time now that we can assume they're telling the truth?

So back to yesterday's question: what happened to Joe Lieberman?

Was he angling for the Sec Def gig? Was he going for the highly improbable and fairly lame honor of dual nomination in the home state?

I don't know Lieberman. To the best of my recollection, I've never spoken to the guy. But I have a lot of friends who know him really well. And from them I get a story that has the ring of truth to me and squares with my own experience of the last half dozen years, though that's from a more distant view.

In their view, it all goes back to 2000.

Remember Ann Richards classic line about George Bush? "He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple."

Well, something similar about Lieberman. Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman in 2000. And fairly quickly he starts thinking he's better at running for president than Al. As one close-up Joe-watcher puts it (and I'm paraphrasing) Lieberman was terrible in 2000. And as he travelled the country he was more and more alienated from rank and file Democrats. Only he thought he'd done great.

Let me pick up the thread from another close-up Joe-watcher: "My guess. He watched Gore during the campaign and decided he could do better. He started thinking of the day he'd run on his own. This was first evidenced after the election when he sold Gore out on the soldiers vote issue. Here he's on the ticket and he is pandering to the right to make himself look good. I think he decided that he wins even if Gore loses ... Then he runs in '04 and sees that his success in 2000 as a candidate was not really his but Gore's. He was a great #2 but not a free standing great man. He was rejected. And he became bitter. Very bitter."

I think this is right. Lieberman always played to above-it-all Beltway opinion. But something changed after early 2004.

Republicans friends of mine point to his Iraq position and say it's all about Iraq. And quite a lot of it is about Iraq. But it's not just his position on the issue. Nor is it even that he doesn't cater to the views of the "base" of the party. It's been a lot more than that, at least for the last two-plus years. He's been something like willfully contemptuous of anyone who has strong partisan identification as a Democrat, notwithstanding their ideological hue. And I suspect that embitterment over the exploded sense of entitlement growing out of 2004 is at the root of it.

Scooter Libby's lawyers probe the nature of memory.

Read their summary of Libby's memory expert's testimony here.

Allegations of possible vote tampering gird a new lawsuit to void the results of the California special election to replace Randy "Duke" Cunningham in Congress. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.

Advanced Copy: Conyers Report on presidential law-breaking available here.

No more Mr. Nice Guy on Social Security phase out.

Majority Leader Boehner pledges that if Republicans retain control of Congress "we’re going to get serious about" phasing out Social Security.

Better the devil you know...

If the Bush Administration signs a bill into law, but doesn't plan to enforce it -- isn't it better that it says so? That's one of the main points made by a panel of legal experts who've posted their thoughts on the controversial "signing statements" issue over at TPMCafe.

A signing statement is just that - a statement that accompanies the President's signing of a law. It's a tool that's long been used by presidents, often in order to instruct agencies on how to execute new laws. But this administration has used it much more widely and aggressively, sometimes in a way that served to effectively veto the legislation, as with John McCain's supposedly comprehensive anti-torture amendment.

It was that kind of use of the signing statement that provoked the American Bar Association to issue a report condemning this administration's use of it. The bipartisan panel said it was an unconstitutional usurpation of power. And following closely on the report, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced that he'd be introducing legislation that would allow Congress to sue the President in order to challenge the statements.

But over at TPMCafe, a panel of eight experts, all of whom have served in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, writes that the ABA got it wrong.

As one would expect, it's a closely reasoned analysis of the issue, but it boils down to a simple idea -- signing statements are just that: statements. "The constitutional problem," the panel writes, "arises when the President executes, or fails to execute, a statute."

If the President doesn't plan to follow the law, you want him saying so. There's already enough of a problem of this administration arguably breaking certain laws to criticize them for being clear about their intentions.

A bad day in court for Tom DeLay.

TPM Election Central got a copy of the flyer the Lieberman campaign is distributing claiming Lamont is soft on race and civil rights. You'll want to see this.

See the flyer here in the TPM Document Collection.

Two TPM Readers on Joe ...

TM: Like you, I've always liked Joe Lieberman. If he had an honest opinion Iraq differing from most Dems, I'd be more able to accept it - but his 'buttering-up of Bush' astounds me. Particularly, as this Congress, almost monthly, seems to willingly concede more and more of its Constitutional powers to the Executive Branch. I'm even more stunned by the willingness of old-style Conservatives to rarely, if ever, question or even discuss the erosion of power in the Legislative Branch. I'm old enough to remember when the prime priorities of Conservatives were decreasing the size and spending of the Federal Government and loudly decrying and battling any attempt by the Feds to introduce any program that, in any way, decreases Personal Privacy and Liberty.

LG: Wonder if you’ve read MYDD today – Matt Stoller references Josh’s posting and then brings up all the times this “principled” Democrat has sold out his party and America. From the Clinton Healthcare debacle to the Lewinsky Affair to his undermining of Gore during the election (and not just the Cheney debate, either). I’m just wondering, then, why Josh finds Joe’s comeuppance so painful to watch. From my vantage point: I’m cheering the fall of an ongoing thorn in the side of the Democratic Party and one that needed to be pulled out long ago.

A TPMmuckraker exclusive: House Judiciary Democrats do the math, tally over two dozen laws and regs the White House has broken, sometimes repeatedly.

Could a Democrat victory in November bring Watergate-style hearings?

Former boss of gay-baiting Ohio GOP emailer says Stricklands must go to court to prove they're not gay.

More from Mark Schmitt on why it really may be over for Joe.

Tom DeLay gets his (latest) day in court. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.

There was a good article in the Hartford Courant Sunday about Lieberman, and his oblivious self-immolation.

The whole thing is painful to watch. At least to me. I still can't help liking the guy.

But he brought it on himself. And he really has no one to blame but himself. Hubris, certainly. But even more than that the obliviousness that is born of hubris. He turns out to have been as oblivious about what was happening in his own state as he was about what was happening in Iraq.

People on Lieberman's side talk a lot about him as a man of principle sticking to his beliefs in spite of public opposition. But it's one thing to stick to your guns when you know you're going to pay a price, quite another to stick to them when you're totally out of touch with the consequences.

Set aside the great issues of the day that are implicated in this race. I'm fascinated by it on a personal level -- or at the level where personalities and character intersect with the subterranean tides of politics. What happened to this guy? No one seems to have had any grasp of the brittleness of his hold on the support of his constituents. Was it the sting of his rejection in 2004? The possibility of getting the Sec Def nod?

There's a great 10,000 word magazine article in this story.

I am still not sure there is much clarity regarding Israel's reported agreement to delay its air attack in southern Lebanon:

Israeli officials said nothing publicly about the suspension early Monday, and Mr. Ereli noted that Israel reserved the right to strike at militants preparing attacks against it.

An Israeli official in the prime minister’s office, who did not want to be identified, simply confirmed the State Department statement, saying, “Israel will be suspending aerial activity over southern Lebanon for 48 hours until the end of the Israeli investigation into Qana.”

As I mentioned in the post below, a report in Haaretz stated that the bombing would only be stopped in the Beirut area, a request the U.S. had made several days ago.

This is an important distinction for several reasons. First, for the Qana incident to occur while Rice was in Jerusalem ostensibly for peace talks is deeply embarrassing. Second, it prevented her from shuttling to Lebanon for further talks and made it likely that she would return to Washington with nothing to show for her efforts, another embarrassment. Third, if the Israelis only agreed to do something that the U.S. had already been urging for days, then neither the Israelis nor the Americans actually conceded anything in response to Qana, which has political implications not just in the region but in Europe as well.

It was certainly odd for the announcement of a major change in the conduct of Israeli military operations to be publicly announced by the U.S., rather than by Israel. It certainly gives the appearance that the Israelis allowed the Americans to make the announcement so that Condi could depart with at least a fig leaf of accomplishment. The question now is did they give her even a fig leaf?

Israel has agreed to some sort of cessation of hostilities, on a very limited basis, but it's not clear to me exactly what Israel agreed to do or not do.

From the NYT (emphasis added):

Late Sunday, Israel agreed to suspend its airstrikes for 48 hours while it investigates the bombing of Qana, a State Department spokesman said. The spokesman, Adam Ereli, told reporters in Jerusalem that Israel would coordinate with the United Nations to provide a 24-hour period during which residents of southern Lebanon could leave area safely.

From Haaretz (emphasis added):

Even though the prime minister announced that Israel will continue its attacks against Hezbollah, even after the sad incident at Qana, and will not accept the demand for an immediate, unconditional cease-fire - he did accede to the American request to limit air-force operations in the area of Beirut. This will be done on condition that Hezbollah will not expand its attacks against other towns in Israel, as its leader, Nasrallah, has recently threatened. . . .

The American request regarding the air force's activities in Beirut was actually made several days ago. Israel was told that this recommendation came from President Bush. Indeed, aerial operations over the Lebanese capital have slowed substantially, with no connection to the unfortunate events at Qana.

Israel was warned that in spite the fact that it is known that in a particular quarter in Beirut (Dahiya in the south), there are tunnels, and that in the main underground command center of Hezbollah, its leaders are hiding - the fact that the city is now full of refugees should be taken into account. A single mistake in a bombing raid would be enough to injure a multitude of civilians.

After what happened in Qana it is logical that the slowdown in air-force action in the skies over Beirut will continue, except if Hezbollah tries to attack other Israeli cities with long-range missiles.

So which is it? Has Israel ceased air operations throughout Lebanon or just in the Beirut area? Could the answer have something to do with the fact that a State Department official traveling with Rice announced the 48-hour delay? What has the Israeli government said?

Update: According to the Jerusalem Post, "The Prime Minister's Office confirmed the report." Well, confirming news reports of what an American official publicly said about what Israel privately agreed to is not the same thing as Israel publicly saying what it agreed to. So the jury is still out . . .

Late Update: Something's up. I had missed this earlier, but the Washington Post reported, "There was no announcement from the Israeli government about the suspension."

Later Update: CNN reporting that an Israeli official confirms that Israel has agreed to a 48-hour stop to bombing in southern Lebanon.

I question how anyone who has been loyal to this President for the last 6 years, as Condi Rice has been, can be considered a moderate. But if there is a remnant faction of moderates in the Administration, they probably are hiding somewhere in Foggy Bottom, and this assessment from Shmuel Rosner is probably correct that the current Lebanese-Israeli situation may be those moderates' last stand:

For more than a year now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been working on her image around the world. A year's worth of effort, and some worthy achievements, and then in two weeks of crisis everything is ruined.

The Europeans, the ambassadors the United Nations, the leaders of Arab states, all those who saw in Rice a stabilizing factor, calculated and reasonable in the Bush administration, are reevaluating their stance toward her. For Rice, this is a personal blow, and also a professional obstacle. Her prestige is an important tool of the trade, and with its absence she will find it difficult to mark successes in the future.

Rice will return to Washington on Monday, frustrated and bruised from two weeks of an exhausting trek that has come to an end on a bitter note. She will sit in meetings with her team in order to think about the crisis anew. Her first mission will be to ensure that the State Department and the White House are broadcasting on the same wavelength.

For the first time during the talks between the Americans and their Israeli counterparts, there is some tension. Israel is not delivering the goods: a quick and convincing victory over Hezbollah, and in its actions Israel is making it more difficult for the Americans to block the international tide in favor of a cease-fire. As such, in different parts of the Bush administration there is a growing realization that the time is approaching when it will be necessary to "cut and bolt with whatever is at hand," as one Washington source said Sunday. Perhaps this will be sooner than Israel expects.

Still, the White House is not the State Department. It is less sensitive to the cries from Europe and a lot more attuned to the domestic political scene, where Israel has the advantage for the time being.

In other words, the real power in the Administration flows not through Foggy Bottom but through the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. You would think that Condi would have figured that out by now.

Karl Rove, media critic, political scientist, and staunch democrat (small "d"):

Some decry the professional role of politics. They would like to see it disappear. Some argue political professionals are ruining American politics--trapping candidates in daily competition for the news cycle instead of long-term strategic thinking in the best interest of the country.

It's odd to me that most of these critics are journalists and columnists. Perhaps they don't like sharing the field of play. Perhaps they want to draw attention away from the corrosive role their coverage has played focusing attention on process and not substance.

It's not necessary to parse the substance of Rove's fatuous comments. We all know how preposterous any of this is coming from Rove. And it's certainly not the first time the GOP has attacked the media as a way of working the refs, which is exactly the purpose of those particular remarks.

But I am struck by Rove's remarks as another example, among many in recent months, that most of the reliable campaign themes the Republicans have employed in the last two decades are no longer viable. National security policy is in a shambles, the federal budget is a wreck, and the GOP's reputation for bringing mature and competent managers to government may take a generation to rebuild. Thematically, only social issues still resonate. That leaves the GOP with two main tactical weapons: demonizing opponents personally and shooting the messenger.

Over the next four months, we will see blistering negative attacks on Democrats of a ferocity and corrosiveness that will make Swift Boats look like the Love Boat. And we will see a continuation of what started in the spring, an unprecedented attack on journalists and journalism, using not only the rhetorical flourishes favored by Rove, but the powers of the state via investigations, subpoenas, and the invocation of state secrets.

The Republicans have amassed great power, arguably more power than any party since the Democrats under Roosevelt. But unlike the Roosevelt years, power today is much more centralized, in politics, in business, and in journalism. It is a concentration of power that is, and I hate to risk going overboard here, dangerous to democracy.

The vigor with which the GOP has attacked journalism in recent months is a reliable indicator of what conservatives see as the greatest threat to their power (and if journalism is the greatest threat, that's a sure sign that other democratic institutions have withered). The Administration has attacked then investigated journalists for disclosing illegal government activities, some authorized by the President. It has suggested that journalists play into the hands of terrorists by reporting on the strife in Iraq. And 24 hours a day, conservatives' Fox News makes a mockery of journalism.

You can disagree about what reality should be. That is the essence of democracy. But when the instruments of state power, including the President's bully pulpit, are used to attack the effort--within government, but especially without--to identify, describe, and analyze what reality is, then we have run right up against the limits of what democracy can withstand. It is the abandonment of the Enlightenment in favor of a dark and uncertain future.

The measurable costs of political corruption . . .

A number of readers, in response to Josh's Mel Gibson post, have emailed to point out that the substance of Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks, as first reported by the website TMZ.com, have since been confirmed. This is true. According to the LA Times, "A source close to the investigation confirmed Saturday that the pages posted by the website were authentic."

Israel agrees to 48-hour cessation of the aerial bombardment of Lebanon to investigate today's bombing and to coordinate with the UN a 24-hour window for civilians to escape southern Lebanon safely.

Have Israel and the United States pushed the Lebanese government past the point of no return?

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuoad Siniora expressed his 'gratitude' to Hizbullah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah for "sacrificing their lives for the country."

During a press conference held in wake of the Qana village incident in which 55 Lebanese were killed, Siniora asked: "Is Israel's mission to wipe out the Lebanese? It seems they want to kill all of us. One of those killed today is a baby just one day old. With its aggression, Israel is encouraging extremism."

"Israel won't obtain a thing through the war," he added. "Does it believe that through war it will obtain goals? They won't obtain a thing, and the opposite is the truth. The entire Lebanese nation is united against the Israeli aggression," Siniora said.

So here, this morning, we have news of the IAF attack on the south Lebanese village of Qana, in which more than 50 people were killed, mainly women and children. The fact that Olmert, Peretz and Halutz offered an immediate apology and pledged an investigation tells you it's probably just as bad as it sounds.

Since Hizbullah doesn't broadcast news of their casualties, I think the damage Israel is doing to its fighting strength on the ground is likely being understated. But I don't see how we can argue, at this point at least, that Hizbullah as a movement doesn't seem strengthened by all this. Hopefully there's some way out of this in which the underlying problem here can be solved -- Lebanon's lack of control over the belligerent militia controlling its southern border. But it's hard to find the signs promising at this moment. And for Israel, one number tells the irreducible story. 140 rockets fell on northern Israel today. That's the highest count since July 12th when the whole thing started. And in terms of how Israel understands its own security, that's the most damning thing: even using main force, they can't stop the rocket attacks on their civilian areas.

As I said a couple days ago, the thing about this region is that things can always get worse, much worse.

And along those lines, I wanted to finish this post by flagging something ominous that keeps coming up in the Israeli press. There's a mix of public and private communications going on between Jerusalem and Damascus. Israel is trying to assure Damascus that they don't plan or want to expand the war to include Syria. Syria is clearly worried that they will and has their troops on full alert. Israel is also warning in no uncertain terms that Syria getting involved will spark massive retaliation.

But there are persistent signs that the US is egging Israel on to bring the war to Damascus.

Here's a clip from the end of an article today in the Jerusalem Post ...

[Israeli]Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the United States that the US would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.

And there are other ominous indications of the US pressing for expansion the Israelis don't seem to want.

There's more here than the US not wanting a ceasefire before meaningful changes on the ground have happened in south Lebanon. Or at least I fear there is. This started because Israel doesn't want and won't tolerate a menacing militia building up on their northern border and lashing out with occasional raids or missile attacks, especially in the context of withdrawals from other areas.

The world has sat by for six years and let Hizbullah's anamolous position in south Lebanon be Israel's problem. Whether their response was wise or just, I'll set aside for the moment. It's not about totalitarianism or Afghanistan or Iraq, at least not in an operational sense, or dingbat fantasies about Freedom and Terror. But there do appear to be forces in Washington -- seemingly the stronger ones, with Rice just a facade -- who see this whole thing as an opportunity for a grand call of double or nothing to get out of the disaster they've created in the region. Go into Syria, maybe Iran. Try to roll the table once and for all. No failed war that a new war can't solve. Condi's mindless 'birth pangs' remark wasn't just a gaffe -- or perhaps it was a gaffe in the Kinsleyan sense of inopportunely saying what you really think. That seems to be the thinking -- transformation through destabilization.